OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary


"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in message
news:482cb3d5$0$7036$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
> Claude V. Lucas wrote:
>> In article <A8ZWj.46097$3v1.4791@bignews3.bellsouth . net >,
> <snip>
>>
>> I've thought for a while now that some sort of public service,
>> ala Starship Troopers before being allowed to have a say in public
>> affairs wouldn't be a bad idea.
>
> That was the salient characteristic of Spartan society. They lost
> to the Athenians.

Sparta pretty much won the Corinthian war... which war
were you thinking of?
__
Steve
.

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary

Stephen Cowell wrote:
> "Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in message
> news:482cb3d5$0$7036$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
>> Claude V. Lucas wrote:
>>> In article <A8ZWj.46097$3v1.4791@bignews3.bellsouth . net >,
>> <snip>
>>> I've thought for a while now that some sort of public service,
>>> ala Starship Troopers before being allowed to have a say in public
>>> affairs wouldn't be a bad idea.
>> That was the salient characteristic of Spartan society. They lost
>> to the Athenians.
>
> Sparta pretty much won the Corinthian war... which war
> were you thinking of?
>
> Steve
> .
>
>

* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian War


Of course it's more complicated than just that one
war - Athens then fell, leaving Sparta more or less dominant
again.

--
Les Cargill

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary

Les Cargill wrote:

> That was the salient characteristic of Spartan society. They lost
> to the Athenians.

Only after their own success had made them so domineering that everyone else
allied against them, that was a political defeat, not a military one.

> Armies/navies win on supply and weapons. The
> nation with the most robust economy wins - the guy who kills
> with the most toys wins....

So explain how the Israelis repeatedly kicked the crap out of many times
their weight in Arab armies that were often better armed in addition to
being bigger. It would seem that a Spartan-like system of citizen-warriors
has its advantages.

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary

DGDevin wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> That was the salient characteristic of Spartan society. They lost
>> to the Athenians.
>
> Only after their own success had made them so domineering that everyone else
> allied against them, that was a political defeat, not a military one.
>
>> Armies/navies win on supply and weapons. The
>> nation with the most robust economy wins - the guy who kills
>> with the most toys wins....
>
> So explain how the Israelis repeatedly kicked the crap out of many times
> their weight in Arab armies that were often better armed

... arguable...

> in addition to
> being bigger. It would seem that a Spartan-like system of citizen-warriors
> has its advantages.
>
>

The Israelis draw on us for material support. Yes, they do the
citizen-soldier thing very well, but look at a map. They're
completely surrounded. The Israelis are a *relatively* wealthy
country for the region. GDP per person makes them more of an
Athens than a Sparta, IMO.


If we had, say, a long running conflict with Mexico or Canada,
I would have a different opinion on the draft.

--
Les Cargill

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary

Les Cargill wrote:

>> So explain how the Israelis repeatedly kicked the crap out of many
>> times their weight in Arab armies that were often better armed
>
> ... arguable...

How so? The closest they came even to a draw was in'48 and that's only
because they didn't get every last thing they wanted, thanks to the
Jordanians.

> The Israelis draw on us for material support. Yes, they do the
> citizen-soldier thing very well, but look at a map. They're
> completely surrounded. The Israelis are a *relatively* wealthy
> country for the region. GDP per person makes them more of an
> Athens than a Sparta, IMO.

They had little if any support from the U.S. in '48 and '56 and even '67.
Most of their weapons were sometimes aging French or British designs they
had souped-up on their own, they were still using WWII hardware (including
bolt-action German rifles) up to the '73 war and beyond. The first time
they had real American support was in '73 and oddly enough that was the
first time they took any real hits. Their relative wealth per capita is
beside the point, they were grossly outnumbered, forced to fight a two or
even three-front war and their foes were backed by Arab oil states and
sponsored by the Soviets. They didn't win through economic depth, they won
because they fought like Spartans.

> If we had, say, a long running conflict with Mexico or Canada,
> I would have a different opinion on the draft.

Not an NHL fan I take it.

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary

DGDevin wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>
>>> So explain how the Israelis repeatedly kicked the crap out of many
>>> times their weight in Arab armies that were often better armed
>> ... arguable...
>
> How so? The closest they came even to a draw was in'48 and that's only
> because they didn't get every last thing they wanted, thanks to the
> Jordanians.
>

Israel has indeed had exceptional military leadership. But that's
about as far as comparisons with Sparta go. You're right about '48.

>> The Israelis draw on us for material support. Yes, they do the
>> citizen-soldier thing very well, but look at a map. They're
>> completely surrounded. The Israelis are a *relatively* wealthy
>> country for the region. GDP per person makes them more of an
>> Athens than a Sparta, IMO.
>
> They had little if any support from the U.S. in '48 and '56 and even '67.
> Most of their weapons were sometimes aging French or British designs they
> had souped-up on their own, they were still using WWII hardware (including
> bolt-action German rifles) up to the '73 war and beyond. The first time
> they had real American support was in '73 and oddly enough that was the
> first time they took any real hits. Their relative wealth per capita is
> beside the point, they were grossly outnumbered, forced to fight a two or
> even three-front war and their foes were backed by Arab oil states and
> sponsored by the Soviets. They didn't win through economic depth, they won
> because they fought like Spartans.
>

This is largely true. They fought like hell. No denying it. I am,
however, not as inclined to dismiss the long term effect of GDP
per person.

Unlike the retainers in, say the Egyptian army, Israeli soldiers
take the job very seriously. Morale is much higher. The society is
significantly more technological.

>> If we had, say, a long running conflict with Mexico or Canada,
>> I would have a different opinion on the draft.
>
> Not an NHL fan I take it.
>
>

The only sport I ever actually followed as a kid was Tulsa Oilers
hockey.

--
Les Cargill

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary



"Claude V. Lucas" wrote:
>
> In article <482C0147.FF88BDC6@timeelect . com >,
> Rich Koerner <richk@timeelect . com > wrote:
> >
> >
> >Mr Soul wrote:
> >>
> >> From Carter's 7/15/79 "Crisis of Confidence" speech:
> >>
> >> "... We know the strength of America. We are strong. We can regain our
> >> unity. We can regain our confidence. We are the heirs of generations
> >> who survived threats much more powerful and awesome than those that
> >> challenge us now. Our fathers and mothers were strong men and women
> >> who shaped a new society during the Great Depression, who fought world
> >> wars, and who carved out a new charter of peace for the world.
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all
> >> the promises of our future point to another path, the path of common
> >> purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to
> >> true freedom for our nation and ourselves. We can take the first steps
> >> down that path as we begin to solve our energy problem.
> >>
> >> Energy will be the immediate test of our ability to unite this nation,
> >> and it can also be the standard around which we rally. On the
> >> battlefield of energy we can win for our nation a new confidence, and
> >> we can seize control again of our common destiny.
> >>
> >> In little more than two decades we've gone from a position of energy
> >> independence to one in which almost half the oil we use comes from
> >> foreign countries, at prices that are going through the roof. Our
> >> excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a tremendous toll on
> >> our economy and our people...
> >>
> >> What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally
> >> important.
> >>
> >> Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of
> >> the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use
> >> more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never...I am tonight setting
> >> the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half
> >> by the end of the next decade -- a saving of over 4-1/2 million
> >> barrels of imported oil per day.
> >>
> >> Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my
> >> presidential authority to set import quotas. I'm announcing tonight
> >> that for 1979 and 1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of
> >> one drop of foreign oil more than these goals allow...
> >>
> >> Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most
> >> massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's
> >> history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel -- from
> >> coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from
> >> unconventional gas, from the sun.
> >>
> >> I propose the creation of an energy security corporation to lead this
> >> effort to replace 2-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day by
> >> 1990. The corporation I will issue up to $5 billion in energy bonds,
> >> and I especially want them to be in small denominations so that
> >> average Americans can invest directly in America's energy security.
> >>
> >> Just as a similar synthetic rubber corporation helped us win World War
> >> II, so will we mobilize American determination and ability to win the
> >> energy war. Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress
> >> calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will
> >> help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming
> >> from solar power by the year 2000.
> >>
> >> These efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why
> >> Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay. It will be
> >> money well spent. Unlike the billions of dollars that we ship to
> >> foreign countries to pay for foreign oil, these funds will be paid by
> >> Americans to Americans. These funds will go to fight, not to increase,
> >> inflation and unemployment.
> >>
> >> Point four: I'm asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of
> >> law, that our nation's utility companies cut their massive use of oil
> >> by 50 percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels,
> >> especially coal, our most abundant energy source.
> >>
> >> Point six: I'm proposing a bold conservation program to involve every
> >> state, county, and city and every average American in our energy
> >> battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your
> >> homes and your lives at a cost you can afford.
> >>
> >> You know we can do it. We have the natural resources. We have more oil
> >> in our shale alone than several Saudi Arabias. We have more coal than
> >> any nation on Earth. We have the world's highest level of technology.
> >> We have the most skilled work force, with innovative genius, and I
> >> firmly believe that we have the national will to win this war.
> >>
> >> I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy. I do
> >> not promise a quick way out of our nation's problems, when the truth
> >> is that the only way out is an all-out effort. What I do promise you
> >> is that I will lead our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our
> >> struggle, and I will ensure honesty. And above all, I will act. We can
> >> manage the short-term shortages more effectively and we will, but
> >> there are no short-term solutions to our long-range problems. There is
> >> simply no way to avoid sacrifice. .."
> >>
> >> Too bad we hadn't listened to Jimmy Carter.
> >>
> >> Mr Soul
> >
> >Yet, another reason for mandatory drug testing for anyone holding public office.
> >
>
> or voting.

passing bills legislating feel good laws based on junk science, that doesn't work, to cure an energy
problem .


Ban products that cause phantom load on the power grid, not incandescent light bulbs.

Electric cars just moves pollution to the power generating plants, and wastes more energy in the
effort.

Moving the USA's manufacturering base to off shore lands is a step in the right direction. But, is
not without it's political and economic problems.

But then, are you not glad China and Russia both are not filled with environmental nut jobs fighting
to ban the production of vacuum tubes.


Regards,

Rich Koerner,
Time Electronics.
* w w w .timeelect . com

Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering,
Music & Studio Production,
Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary

In article <482C8B6D.E25C5AB@timeelect . com >,
Rich Koerner <richk@timeelect . com > wrote:
>
>
>"Claude V. Lucas" wrote:
>>
>> In article <482C0147.FF88BDC6@timeelect . com >,
>> Rich Koerner <richk@timeelect . com > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Mr Soul wrote:
>> >>
>> >> From Carter's 7/15/79 "Crisis of Confidence" speech:
>> >>
>> >> "... We know the strength of America. We are strong. We can regain our
>> >> unity. We can regain our confidence. We are the heirs of generations
>> >> who survived threats much more powerful and awesome than those that
>> >> challenge us now. Our fathers and mothers were strong men and women
>> >> who shaped a new society during the Great Depression, who fought world
>> >> wars, and who carved out a new charter of peace for the world.
>> >>
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all
>> >> the promises of our future point to another path, the path of common
>> >> purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to
>> >> true freedom for our nation and ourselves. We can take the first steps
>> >> down that path as we begin to solve our energy problem.
>> >>
>> >> Energy will be the immediate test of our ability to unite this nation,
>> >> and it can also be the standard around which we rally. On the
>> >> battlefield of energy we can win for our nation a new confidence, and
>> >> we can seize control again of our common destiny.
>> >>
>> >> In little more than two decades we've gone from a position of energy
>> >> independence to one in which almost half the oil we use comes from
>> >> foreign countries, at prices that are going through the roof. Our
>> >> excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a tremendous toll on
>> >> our economy and our people...
>> >>
>> >> What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally
>> >> important.
>> >>
>> >> Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of
>> >> the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use
>> >> more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never...I am tonight setting
>> >> the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half
>> >> by the end of the next decade -- a saving of over 4-1/2 million
>> >> barrels of imported oil per day.
>> >>
>> >> Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my
>> >> presidential authority to set import quotas. I'm announcing tonight
>> >> that for 1979 and 1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of
>> >> one drop of foreign oil more than these goals allow...
>> >>
>> >> Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most
>> >> massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's
>> >> history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel -- from
>> >> coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from
>> >> unconventional gas, from the sun.
>> >>
>> >> I propose the creation of an energy security corporation to lead this
>> >> effort to replace 2-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day by
>> >> 1990. The corporation I will issue up to $5 billion in energy bonds,
>> >> and I especially want them to be in small denominations so that
>> >> average Americans can invest directly in America's energy security.
>> >>
>> >> Just as a similar synthetic rubber corporation helped us win World War
>> >> II, so will we mobilize American determination and ability to win the
>> >> energy war. Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress
>> >> calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will
>> >> help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming
>> >> from solar power by the year 2000.
>> >>
>> >> These efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why
>> >> Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay. It will be
>> >> money well spent. Unlike the billions of dollars that we ship to
>> >> foreign countries to pay for foreign oil, these funds will be paid by
>> >> Americans to Americans. These funds will go to fight, not to increase,
>> >> inflation and unemployment.
>> >>
>> >> Point four: I'm asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of
>> >> law, that our nation's utility companies cut their massive use of oil
>> >> by 50 percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels,
>> >> especially coal, our most abundant energy source.
>> >>
>> >> Point six: I'm proposing a bold conservation program to involve every
>> >> state, county, and city and every average American in our energy
>> >> battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your
>> >> homes and your lives at a cost you can afford.
>> >>
>> >> You know we can do it. We have the natural resources. We have more oil
>> >> in our shale alone than several Saudi Arabias. We have more coal than
>> >> any nation on Earth. We have the world's highest level of technology.
>> >> We have the most skilled work force, with innovative genius, and I
>> >> firmly believe that we have the national will to win this war.
>> >>
>> >> I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy. I do
>> >> not promise a quick way out of our nation's problems, when the truth
>> >> is that the only way out is an all-out effort. What I do promise you
>> >> is that I will lead our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our
>> >> struggle, and I will ensure honesty. And above all, I will act. We can
>> >> manage the short-term shortages more effectively and we will, but
>> >> there are no short-term solutions to our long-range problems. There is
>> >> simply no way to avoid sacrifice. .."
>> >>
>> >> Too bad we hadn't listened to Jimmy Carter.
>> >>
>> >> Mr Soul
>> >
>> >Yet, another reason for mandatory drug testing for anyone holding public office.
>> >
>>
>> or voting.
>
>passing bills legislating feel good laws based on junk science, that doesn't work, to cure an energy
>problem .
>
>
>Ban products that cause phantom load on the power grid, not incandescent light bulbs.
>
>Electric cars just moves pollution to the power generating plants, and wastes more energy in the
>effort.
>
>Moving the USA's manufacturering base to off shore lands is a step in the right direction. But, is
>not without it's political and economic problems.
>
>But then, are you not glad China and Russia both are not filled with environmental nut jobs fighting
>to ban the production of vacuum tubes.
>
>

Doesn't really matter to me.

Vacuum tubes are barely one step above buggy whips
on the evolutionary ladder as far as I'm concerned.

As far as meeting energy needs goes, there's progress being made.

Solar & wind plants being opened.

Smaller and cleaner nuclear plants under development that can
decentralize power production and reduce transmission overhead.

Estimated Middle East's worth of petroleum to be had in North America.

If only Congress would get it's act together and pass legislation to
control those pesky volcanoes and that nasty ole Sun, we wouldn't have
to worry about Global Warming and algore would have to get a real job.

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary

> passing bills legislating feel good laws based on junk science, that doesn=
't work, to cure an energy
> problem .
And what are you referring to now?

> Ban products that cause phantom load on the power grid, not incandescent l=
ight bulbs.
When did incandescent light bulbs can banned - I must have missed that
one? Incandescent light bulbs are really inefficient producers of
light though.

> Electric cars just moves pollution to the power generating plants, and was=
tes more energy in the
> effort.
I agree here but who's pushing electric cars? Hybrid cars are the way
to go.

> Moving the USA's manufacturering base to off shore lands is a step in the =
right direction.  But, is
> not without it's political and economic problems.
And why is that?

Mr Soul

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary



Mr Soul wrote:
>
> > passing bills legislating feel good laws based on junk science, that doesn't work, to cure an energy
> > problem .
> And what are you referring to now?
>
> > Ban products that cause phantom load on the power grid, not incandescent light bulbs.
> When did incandescent light bulbs can banned - I must have missed that
> one? Incandescent light bulbs are really inefficient producers of
> light though.
>

* w w w .worldnetdaily . com /news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59298

It doesn't matter that gas bulbs are the majority, and go through with this feel good home use of
incandescent light bulbs.





> > Electric cars just moves pollution to the power generating plants, and wastes more energy in the
> > effort.
> I agree here but who's pushing electric cars? Hybrid cars are the way
> to go.

Any time you plug anything that has anything to do with moving that car into the power grid, you
moved the pollution to the power station.




> > Moving the USA's manufacturering base to off shore lands is a step in the right direction. But, is
> > not without it's political and economic problems.


> And why is that?


You can't be serious.

OK.

You are heavily invested in having an off shore country produce your new line guitars and
amplifiers.

You paid to have the buildings constructed and equipped with the best machines and technology money
could buy.

You get the operation started and get through the labor growing pains.

You just start to get back your investment.

What can go WRONG!!!

List them.

Hint - who's got who by the balls.


Regards,

Rich Koerner,
Time Electronics.
* w w w .timeelect . com

Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering,
Music & Studio Production,
Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary

> * w w w .worldnetdaily . com /news/article.asp?ARTICLE ID=59298
Good for them (and Bush signed it)! I'm sure that there's more in
this bill than just that.

> Any time you plug anything that has anything to do with moving that car into the power grid, you
> moved the pollution to the power station.
I agree with you here, but you're assuming that the electricity is not
"green". If it's from solar energy or hydro then electric cars are
better.

Mr Soul

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary

Rich Koerner wrote:

> * w w w .worldnetdaily . com /news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59298
>
> It doesn't matter that gas bulbs are the majority, and go through
> with this feel good home use of incandescent light bulbs.

We switched to CFLs a couple of years ago and saw an immediate and
substantial decrease in our power bill, easily a third less. Is paying less
money to the electric company a "feel good" scenario? Yup, it sure is.

> Any time you plug anything that has anything to do with moving that
> car into the power grid, you moved the pollution to the power station.

Where it can be dealt with more effectively than would be possible with
small, mobile internal combustion engines. It isn't a difficult concept
Rich, and since you're a bright guy I have to think you're making a special
effort to pretend you don't get that.

Never mind Rich, summer is almost here, you won't have to carry in coal for
the furnace for months and months. Of course there's all that mess and fuss
when the iceman delivers every few days, but that's the price you pay for
not being suckered in by this new-fangled feel-good technology.

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary

On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:48:21 -0700, "DGDevin"
<dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Rich Koerner wrote:
>
>> * w w w .worldnetdaily . com /news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59298
>>
>> It doesn't matter that gas bulbs are the majority, and go through
>> with this feel good home use of incandescent light bulbs.
>
>We switched to CFLs a couple of years ago and saw an immediate and
>substantial decrease in our power bill, easily a third less. Is paying less
>money to the electric company a "feel good" scenario? Yup, it sure is.
>
>> Any time you plug anything that has anything to do with moving that
>> car into the power grid, you moved the pollution to the power station.
>
>Where it can be dealt with more effectively than would be possible with
>small, mobile internal combustion engines. It isn't a difficult concept
>Rich, and since you're a bright guy I have to think you're making a special
>effort to pretend you don't get that.
>
>Never mind Rich, summer is almost here, you won't have to carry in coal for
>the furnace for months and months. Of course there's all that mess and fuss
>when the iceman delivers every few days, but that's the price you pay for
>not being suckered in by this new-fangled feel-good technology.
>
Best not leave those on while you are gone or at night while your
family sleeps.They have been known to catch on fire. I leave on a new
20 watt flourescent dual bulb light in the kitchen over the
sink..lights the whole house good enough to see where you are going
and you can just leave it on when you leave and it will not catch on
fire like CFLs can.

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary

DGDevin <dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Rich Koerner wrote:

>> Any time you plug anything that has anything to do with moving that
>> car into the power grid, you moved the pollution to the power
>> station.
>
> Where it can be dealt with more effectively than would be possible
> with small, mobile internal combustion engines. It isn't a difficult
> concept Rich, and since you're a bright guy I have to think you're
> making a special effort to pretend you don't get that.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm all for increased energy efficiency, but moving
the pollution to the power station is a reality, and until someone shows
me an analysis that says that it's actually dealt with more effectively
*and* that deals with the additional efficiency hit (because *no* energy
conversion operation is 100% efficient), color me skeptical.

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary

RichL wrote:
> DGDevin <dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Rich Koerner wrote:
>
>>> Any time you plug anything that has anything to do with moving that
>>> car into the power grid, you moved the pollution to the power
>>> station.
>> Where it can be dealt with more effectively than would be possible
>> with small, mobile internal combustion engines. It isn't a difficult
>> concept Rich, and since you're a bright guy I have to think you're
>> making a special effort to pretend you don't get that.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. I'm all for increased energy efficiency, but moving
> the pollution to the power station is a reality, and until someone shows
> me an analysis that says that it's actually dealt with more effectively
> *and* that deals with the additional efficiency hit (because *no* energy
> conversion operation is 100% efficient), color me skeptical.
>
>

I expect we could carve out a few dozen thousand acres outta Nevada,
build some sort of breeder* reactor farm, use the output to convert
biomass to fuel oil and gasoline equivalents. With a few umpety
gigawatts, you can probably do about anything you like.

*or something self-sustaining.

Then there is this:

* dvice . com /archives/2007/12/power your home.php

Too cheap to meter, baby.

--
Les Cargill